Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Actually, I found a note that said it's recommended to never increase
>> it about 65535 - so perhaps we should put our limit at that instead od
>> 32767?
> Yeah, setting it at 65535 seems like a good idea then. I'm tempted to
> backport this, although it's not strictly speaking a bug fix. Any
> objections?
Why isn't it a bug fix? +1 for backport ...
regards, tom lane